jaroge wrote:While I do find this talk of 'tryannical governments' a little unreal, it is important to note that throughout history, particularely the last hundred or so years, Democide appears to be one of the greatest causes of murder, eclipsing all others. To dismiss this as a possibility is to completely ignore the historical record.

jaroge wrote:To make your case you would have to show the net balance of the former to be significantly higher than the latter.

Actually, he doesn't. If we were arguing with a creationist, the correct response would be to tell them to go away and read some books. You can't talk meaningfully about a subject you know nothing about.

We are not responsible for your similarly narrow-minded approach to the subject and your wilful ignorance of easily discovered facts about guns.

It does seem that the arguments against gun control are driven almost entirely by fear

Fear that someone will break in and kill youFear that someone will break in and rape youFear that someone will rob you in the streetFear that you will be attacked by a wild rabid pigFear that the governement will attack and kill youFear that mutant killer chickens will fire their eye lazors at you

Just fear fear irrational fear.

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts - Bertrand Russel

Quoting yourself in your own signature is both narcissistic and plain weird - 95Theses

The_Metatron wrote:Tell us how this meshes with a background check. "Unjustly convicted", eh? Appeals court is where unjust convictions are reviewed.

Unjust, my ass.

You didn't read the article, did you?

Sometimes appeals fail, and redress is made through pardons. And sometimes overzealous prosecutors up the ante on the charges to make themselves look good in the eyes of the electorate, resulting in unjust convictions. However, even if someone is pardoned, they can still be forbidden to own firearms - thus, the redress system was instituted. Also, some felons have convictions absolutely unrelated to any sort of violence - particularly youthful mistakes of a non-violent, non-drug nature - yet are forbidden from owning firearms for life. Thus, the redress system - governed and supervised by the court, providing due process of law.

Unless you want to assert that the criminal justice system, with it's current process of appeals courts to correct mistakes, is perfect - but in that case, I have reams of evidence to refute that argument.

Minimolas wrote:Step outside of your fantasy world for a second and tell me just what in the fuck an unarmed populace should do if their government begins to kill its people?

This reasoning behind the 2nd Ad may of made sense in the 1700s but it doesn't hold any water in the modern world. No amount of semi-automatics are going to stop a totalitarian government armed with rocket launchers, tanks, jets and nukes.

Which is why Mubarak is still controlling Egypt, and Syria is firmly in control of Assad.

Semi-autos are not the end-all, be-all of weapon systems - but in resisting an oppressive government, they are one hell of a lot better than muzzle loaders.

Anyone who thinks that a population armed with ordinary small arms plus whatever they can improvise is no match at all for a modern military equipped with "rocket launchers, tanks, jets and nukes" (though why the last is included, given how many times they've been used against any population at all, is beyond me) is completely ignorant of not only history, but current events. With enough willpower and enough generalized dissatisfaction, few military forces can stand against a determined populace.

Ads by Google

The_Metatron wrote:Are you telling me that list of felons who got re-armed were all pardoned?

No, not at all - but some were. Others used the redress process to allow firearms ownership after felony convictions for dumb acts made in their youth - which, if you would read the damn article as I requested twice, you'd know.

Yes, that is true - a long while back. Later, it was judged to be a useful tool that should continue.

People make mistakes. Sometimes the consequences of those mistakes should last forever - sometimes not. It is useful to have flexibility in any system, to account for the fact that not all individuals, and not all cases, are utterly equal.

This isn't about giving a "pass on a background check" - they go through a process of law to gain their rights back, with a low overall success rate. This is as it should be - because mostly the system is right in the first place. But sometimes it isn't, and redress should be possible.

You can't even dream up a method to predict when law abiding "responsible" gun owners will crack and start killing. Nor can you dream up a method to prevent it from happening.

I'll just be goddamned if we need to be worrying about those who have fucking demonstrated (hence, the convictions) that they are less than responsible. This is not a problem in need of a solution.

It was simple enough for you and I to avoid becoming a felon, therefore enjoying the ability to own guns in America. If those that find it too difficult to refrain from felonies can't own guns, tough shit.

Anyone who commits a felony has demonstrated that they could not, at that time, live within the laws of society. Therefore, they may at some future time also not be able to live within the laws of society. Therefore, the only reasonable courses of action for anyone who ever commits a felony is life in prison or execution - because you never know.

Also, we must assume the system is perfect - nobody is ever unjustly convicted, and has those convictions upheld by numerous courts of appeal.

Ads by Google

Your ideas are ridiculous. I admit it's not entirely fair to treat them as a joke because they have extremely toxic consequences in society and mostly I do take that very, very seriously.

The thing is though, sometimes satire is the best way to show how ridiculous an idea is. Barky Obama can't really be compared to Mubarak. The US is not Egypt. Not even close. You are scaremongering. It's just reads better the way I said that the first time.

We've been through this before... The defence against tyranny argument is anachronistic horse shit. The imbalances of power in a modern democracy like the US have little in common with those of the feudal monarchies of the late middle ages which the "right to bear arms" was intended to challenge. Democracy, a free press (and other mass media), and the rule of law create a completely different political dynamic in which guns have no place. Indeed, guns are almost handed out like beads and mirrors to keep the natives happy, offering the illusion of liberty to gullible people who are being shafted left right and center by a genuine corruption of power: the capture of democracy by vastly wealthy corporations and individuals.

In short, calm down, put the guns away, and take part in your imperfect but peaceful democracy. It's got potential.

Your ideas are ridiculous. I admit it's not entirely fair to treat them as a joke because they have extremely toxic consequences in society and mostly I do take that very, very seriously.

The thing is though, sometimes satire is the best way to show how ridiculous an idea is. Barky Obama can't really be compared to Mubarak. The US is not Egypt. Not even close. You are scaremongering. It's just reads better the way I said that the first time.

We've been through this before... The defence against tyranny argument is anachronistic horse shit. The imbalances of power in a modern democracy like the US have little in common with those of the feudal monarchies of the late middle ages which the "right to bear arms" was intended to challenge. Democracy, a free press (and other mass media), and the rule of law create a completely different political dynamic in which guns have no place. Indeed, guns are almost handed out like beads and mirrors to keep the natives happy, offering the illusion of liberty to gullible people who are being shafted left right and center by a genuine corruption of power: the capture of democracy by vastly wealthy corporations and individuals.

In short, calm down, put the guns away, and take part in your imperfect but peaceful democracy. It's got potential.

I find it just a little odd how Americans shout to the rooftops about their "exceptionalism" and describe their country as being "the best that ever was" and yet turn right around and compare it to Egypt or Syria as examples of why they need to be armed.

As mucked up as I think things are in America I can't drag myself into thinking evil forces are going to take over its government and create a dictatorship of tyrannical rule against which citizens would have to rise in armed rebellion to defeat. Try as I might I just can't get that picture to come up on my radar. The entire historical thrust of America has been away from that kind of scenario, not towards it.

Not to say the country may not have to endure lousy rule by misguided Congresses or administrations from time to time, certainly that's already been seen and will likely be seen again. But forceful takeover is beyond my imagining and hence I'm hard pressed to support the notion that the citizenry needs to be armed for that contingency. I think it's a spurious argument promoted by the gun industry and its mouthpiece the NRA to sell more and ever more guns.

Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?

Your ideas are ridiculous. I admit it's not entirely fair to treat them as a joke because they have extremely toxic consequences in society and mostly I do take that very, very seriously.

The thing is though, sometimes satire is the best way to show how ridiculous an idea is. Barky Obama can't really be compared to Mubarak. The US is not Egypt. Not even close. You are scaremongering. It's just reads better the way I said that the first time.

And where did I ever compare Obama to Mubarak? Fucking strawman bullshit.

We've been through this before... The defence against tyranny argument is anachronistic horse shit. The imbalances of power in a modern democracy like the US have little in common with those of the feudal monarchies of the late middle ages which the "right to bear arms" was intended to challenge. Democracy, a free press (and other mass media), and the rule of law create a completely different political dynamic in which guns have no place. Indeed, guns are almost handed out like beads and mirrors to keep the natives happy, offering the illusion of liberty to gullible people who are being shafted left right and center by a genuine corruption of power: the capture of democracy by vastly wealthy corporations and individuals.

In short, calm down, put the guns away, and take part in your imperfect but peaceful democracy. It's got potential.

Calm down? Seriously? You think I'm not calm, or that I don't take part in democracy?

I have carried guns all my adult life - longer than you've even been alive - including in some truly dangerous places around the world, and I haven't shot anyone yet. I've also voted and engaged myself in the political process that whole time. But I've also paid attention to events around the world, and I'm not deluded into thinking that surrendering my guns isn't a surrender of a potential power - one which I desperately hope would never have to be used, but which should be maintained as a hedge against much worse.

The idea of citizens holding arms to keep the government in check is paradoxical unless there are issues at the ballot box. Can anyone offer up a possible scenario where guns wielded by regular citizens could have a beneficial influence on how a country operates where those regular citizens also have adequate access to the ballot box?

At the time the second amendment was written the US was very new, lacked financial systems with which to fund a standing army, and was surrounded by well established nations with powerful militia - England, France, Holland. They were trying to form alliances to meet these needs without giving away the farm, literally. So they encoded the local citizenry to keep and bear arms to protect the constitution so the US could survive. It made sense then.

Now we have a failing Republican party struggling to gerrymander its electoral districts so it gets more influence than it deserves assuming each persons vote counts equally, and is now considering gerrymandering the electoral college to the same end.

If you ask me these Republicans are messing with the ballot box, and I for one can only see this ending in a civil war. But lets put that aside for now. Lets just try and come up with any possible scenario where a regular citizen could usefully raise up his weapons rather than deal with his issues at the ballot box?

Bear in mind, if any group of citizens were to take this step they would initially be opposed by their local police, who would then turn to the boys at the ATF, who would then turn to the full might of the strongest military force on the planet complete with nuclear capability. The only way to do this is under a civil war scenario where the government forces themselves are divided, which will only happen when there has been a failure at the ballot box.

So again I ask - can anyone offer up even one possible scenario where the citizens might meaningfully raise up against their own government?